When (the Constitution) was written, in Philadelphia in 1787, it did not contain a bill of rights. The people who drafted the Constitution did not think one was necessary. They thought that the structure of government was enough to protect individuals' rights. The Bill of Rights was added later.
Already learning something on Page 1. I thought the Constitution was ratified with the understanding
that a bill of rights was forthcoming. I stand corrected...
Let's be clear about one thing, for starters: the Constitution is not a bulwark. By this I mean it does not erect an impenetrable wall around the citizens of the United States to defend them against tyranny and abuses. It is porous. It needs shoring up from time to time.
But the laws themselves only go so far. A prohibition on murder is meaningless if there are no police officers or prosecutors to enforce it or if a judge's order sending a convicted criminal to prison can be ignored for the right price. Likewise, a routine contract has effect only if the parties are willing to adhere to it in good faith and, barring that, to go to court to enforce it through the judicial system.
So, too, if a federal judge determines that the president -- or any other elected leader or government employee -- has run afoul of the Constitution, the document itself cannot enforce the court's order. If the head of the executive branch violates it, a consequence must follow. Otherwise the rule of law becomes meaningless.
Get a copy, this is going to be good...